Plans to build 35 houses in a Derbyshire village are once again set for approval after being recalled by Amber Valley’s new Labour administration.
The homes were originally approved for land off Wessington Lane in South Wingfield in March, but were recalled before final sign-off.
When the plans, submitted by Wildgoose Homes, were initially approved, a furious resident, angry with the decision, threw a handful of 5p coins at councillors and staff.
He shouted “here’s 30 pieces of silver from South Wingfield, you Judases!” before throwing the coins at councillors and planning officers.
This term refers to a passage in the Bible in which a story is told of one of Jesus’ disciples, Judas, being paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus.
The story tells how this betrayal lead to Jesus’ crucifiction.
Now, the 35 homes in Wessington Lane are again recommended for approval by council officers.
A decision will be made at the authority’s planning board meeting on Monday, September 23.
There would be 30 per cent affordable housing as part of the 35-home scheme, with £65,000 set to be given by the developer for refurbishment of the High Road play area and £13,400 for increased space at Crich Medical Practice.
Councillors had debated another one of the new administration’s recalled applications earlier this month.
In that meeting, councillors chose to overturn an original approval for 175 houses on the former Firs Works site in Nether Heage.
Ahead of next week’s decision, 122 residents have submitted objection letters saying that the site is a greenfield plot and that brownfield land should be built on first.
Objecting residents also say that the proposed homes could cause light pollution and that there are only limited bus services for new residents.
They also say that the single-track access to the site would not be able to sustain any further traffic or heavy construction vehicles.
South Wingfield Parish Council also objects to the plans, saying that the homes represent a flood risk and that the local sewer network does not have the capacity to cater for them.
District councillor for the area, Councillor Valerie Thorpe, has also objected, saying: “The development is out of context with the rest of the village and will have an adverse impact on the landscape.”
The plans include the widening of the lane from the boundary of South Wingfield up to the proposed access.
Residents have previously said that widening the road would not be possible, because the neighbouring land is owned by the parish council and part is the front garden of a resident’s house.
Another member of the public, Ms Scott, had said that a memorial bench, dedicated to her deceased grandmother, had been placed on the application site.
When the plans were originally approved, Councillor Ron Ashton, then vice-chairman of the planning committee, had said: “Sometimes this is a very difficult thing to do, sometimes we are not happy with certain things to do with an application, but if there are no objections from highways and other consultees we would have a very difficult time defending this at appeal.”
Recommending approval for next week’s meeting, council planning officers wrote: “Whilst the council has a five-year housing land supply, based on the standard methodology, this is not a ceiling and the provision of general needs housing is a significant material consideration in the light of national policy.
“There are no adverse impacts of this proposed development which would mean that the balance would not be in favour of granting the development.”
The committee is also recommended to approve 19 houses submitted by Peveril Homes, also for land off Wessington Lane in South Wingfield.
These homes would sit just to the south of the proposed 35-home scheme.
Five of the proposed 19 homes would be affordable housing.
The parish council also opposes this scheme, along with 49 residents who have submitted objection letters.
They say that the 19-home plans are an “over intensification of a very small piece of pasture land”.
The objectors also say: “A previous application was refused on as being out of the village framework and on landscape grounds, this was upheld on appeal. The issues are still valid.”